Punjab-Haryana High Court
Secretary Punjab State Electricity ... vs Presiding Officer And Anr on 27 November, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 27, 2014
Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Now Chief
Engineer HRD PSPCL, Patiala and others .......Petitioners
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala
and another .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Sherry K.Singla, Advocate for the caveator.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The instant writ petition is directed against the award, dated 24.10.2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workman-respondent No.2 holding his termination from service to be illegal and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% backwages.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the workman had secured appointment on regular basis as Assistant Lineman on 25.4.1990 on the basis of a bogus experience certificate of work-charge service alleged to have been rendered under REC Division, Bathinda, Sub Division, Dhuri, Sub Division, Kotkapura and Sub Division, Barnala for the period SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.23 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 2 1987 to 24.4.1990. It is contended that upon a complaint having been received, Enquiry Officer was appointed and in pursuance to findings having been returned against the workman in the enquiry report, an order dated 23.12.2003 was passed by the Competent Authority terminating his services. It is argued that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned award, has erred in interfering with an order of major penalty which had been passed upon culmination of regular departmental proceedings and categoric findings having been returned by an Enquiry Officer holding the tenure of work-charge service claimed by the workman to be fake. It has been argued that the Tribunal has completely mis-read and mis-construed the enquiry report dated 31.3.2003 and which had been adduced as evidence before the Tribunal as Exhibit M4 and appended along with the instant writ petition as Annexure P1. Further argued that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the termination order of the workman in the absence of any documentary proof of work charge service having been produced by respondent No.2. Yet another submission raised by the learned counsel is that a similar complaint had been received against one Shri Jagdev Singh who had also been appointed as Assistant Lineman on regular basis and who had allegedly relied on bogus work charge service certificate. Even in the case of Jagdev Singh, enquiry was instituted and the same Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and held the certificate to be bogus. Services of Jagdev Singh having been terminated and industrial dispute having been raised, the Tribunal has upheld the order of termination and has answered the reference against Jagdev Singh SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.23 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 3 who was identically situated. Learned counsel argues that on such ground alone, the impugned award cannot sustain.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having perused the pleadings on record, this Court is of the considered view that no basis for interference is made out and the writ petition merits dismissal.
4. There is no dispute as regards the fact that workman- respondent No.2 had been appointed as Assistant Lineman on regular basis on 25.4.1990. He had claimed to have discharged duties on work charge basis prior thereto from the year 1987 to 24.4.1990. Complaint having been received, enquiry was instituted on the allegation that the certificate pertaining to work charge service submitted by the workman was fake and bogus. Enquiry report dated 31.3.2003 was furnished by the Enquiry Officer returning a finding that the tenure of work charge service claimed by the workman was fake. Such finding led to the passing of the order of termination from service dated 23.12.2003. Even a statutory appeal preferred by the workman against the order of termination was dismissed.
5. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the enquiry report is biased and without any evidence. Towards recording such finding, the deposition of Management witness Darshan Singh, MW1 was noticed and who, in his cross-examination, had clearly stated that no statement of Management witness as also the workman had been recorded by the Enquiry Officer prior to submission of enquiry report, Exhibit M4. It was further deposed that no document regarding bogus service had been produced by SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.23 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 4 the Department and which was allegedly submitted by the workman. MW1 further deposed that the appointment letter for regular post of Assistant Lineman was issued by the Executive Engineer, D.S.Division, P.S.E.B. Gidderbaha and the Sub Divisional Officer, Gidderbaha had been directed to check all the formalities before permitting the workman to join on the post. It was further deposed that no workman was allowed to join on the regular post till such time the formalities mentioned in the appointment letter were completed. Admission was also made by MW1 that workman-respondent No.2 was allowed to join as regular Assistant Lineman only after completion of all the formalities as had been mentioned in his appointment letter. Deposition of Management witness Surjit Singh, MW2 was in identical terms and thereby corroborating the statement of MW1 Darshan Singh. That apart, the Tribunal having perused the enquiry file has recorded that during the course of enquiry proceedings, the service record pertaining to work charge service of the workman had been sought and the Auditor from Dhuri had produced the service record on 18.7.2002 pertaining only to the regular tenure of service. Thereafter, the service book from the Office of Urban Sub Division, Gidderbaha was called for by the Enquiry Officer. A letter dated 26.9.2002 was received by the Enquiry Officer from Executive Engineer, Dhuri who had stated that enquiries had been made as regards service book of workman from Executive Engineer, Giderbaha but it was revealed that such service book is not available and since the workman prior to being appointed on regular basis had been working under SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.23 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 5 R.E. Division Bathinda, records from such office be requisitioned. The Tribunal while holding the enquiry report to be biased has noticed that the workman at no stage had closed evidence and yet the Enquiry Officer on 13.11.2002 had opted to close evidence and sent a report against the workman even though the alleged fabricated certificate of work charge service was never produced. None of the Management witnesses had deposed in support of the charge and allegation that the workman had not worked as a work charge employee for the period in question. It was further noticed that the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings himself acted like the Presenting Officer and issued communications for the purpose of calling record and yet no effort was made to summon the record from R.E. Division Bathinda.
6. Even during the course of arguments today, learned counsel for the petitioners would concede that the Management had chosen not to examine even the concerned Executive Engineer, D.S.Division, P.S.E.B.,Gidderbaha who had issued the appointment letter to the workman-respondent No.2 as regards regular appointment as Assistant Lineman and which was done upon due verification at the hands of the Sub Divisional Officer, Gidderbaha. Even the Sub Divisional Officer, Gidderbaha was not examined in support of the charges against the workman.
7. Copy of the enquiry report dated 31.3.2003 has been placed on record as Annexure P1 and the relevant excerpt therefrom is re-produced hereunder:
"....Meaning thereby that employee himself also failed SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.23 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 6 to give any information regarding his own service book. Therefore, there is no doubt rather it is certain that the employee in conspiracy with some employee of the office, who has destroyed his service book, so that no record remained pertaining to his work charge tenure.
It is, therefore, clear that the tenure of employees work charge service is fake."
8. This Court would have no hesitation in observing that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based on conjectures and surmises. Clearly, an order of termination based on such findings cannot be permitted to stand. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding the enquiry report to be biased and without evidence.
9. The contention raised by the learned counsel as regards citing the instance of co-employee Jagdev Singh is wholly misplaced. Even though the allegation against Jagdev Singh was similar as regards having secured regular appointment to a post on the basis of a fake and bogus certificate, yet industrial dispute having been raised and upon reference having been made, the Tribunal declined the reference vide award dated 9.9.2013 at Annexure P2 on a completely distinguishable basis. The award rendered in the case of Jagdev Singh whereby Tribunal upheld order of termination would reveal that in the facts of that case, the service book of the workman Jagdev Singh had been sent to Sub Division, Phagwara for verification and a report had been received that he had not worked there. Furthermore, during the SUSHAMA RANI MALIK 2014.12.23 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8945 OF 2014 7 enquiry proceedings, Jagdev Singh had produced before the Enquiry Officer an office letter bearing No.9843 dated 9.9.2002 in which it was stated that he had served as work charged T-mate from April 1980 to March 1981 and when such letter was sent for verification, the same was also found to be forged. As such, the petitioner-Management cannot place any reliance upon the award rendered in their favour as regards co-employee Jagdev Singh is concerned.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the award, dated 24.10.2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala at Annexure P5 is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
NOVEMBER 27, 2014 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
SUSHAMA RANI MALIK
2014.12.23 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document